This matter is before the Court on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' remand for a determination of diversity jurisdiction, as well as plaintiff's Motion to Remand this case back to the Circuit Court for Oakland County.
This Court finds that the facts and the legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs, and that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral arguments. Accordingly, the motion before this Court will be disposed of upon the briefs submitted by the parties. See E. Local R. Plaintiff seeks equitable and monetary relief, alleging that his application for employment was rejected because he is diabetic.
Following an initial interview, plaintiff was given an EDS application form and a Health History questionnaire to complete. Following return of the questionnaire, EDS informed him that the hiring manager, defendant Steve Brechtelsbauer and three technical people would meet with him to determine his qualifications. Plaintiff met with Brechtelsbauer. The two discussed Brechtelsbauer's department, the nature of the work, and what plaintiff could expect in his meeting with the technical panel.
Subsequently, the technical panel apparently determined that plaintiff lacked the technical qualifications to immediately step into the Systems Engineer position and effectively perform without delay. After Brechtelsbauer received the panel members' input, he again met with the plaintiff. Brechtelsbauer told him that EDS would not make him an offer as a Systems Engineer, however, plaintiff claimed, in his complaint, [2] his deposition testimony, [3] and his motion for summary judgment, that during this last meeting he was offered and accepted a position as an Associate Systems Engineer, and was to report to work the following Wednesday.
Plaintiff alleges that he was telephoned on the preceding Monday and Tuesday and told not to report. On June 21, , plaintiff moved to remand this case to state court. Plaintiff therein argued, in contrast to the position taken in his complaint, that he was never in fact an employee of EDS. Thus, according to plaintiff, he was not a "participant" in an ERISA plan, and this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint.
